It's a good news, bad news kind of thing
So, it appears CBC has decided to keep their "Reality Check" segment. I suppose that's a 'yay,' though I reiterate my belief that reality checks should be part of every story.
There is a 'boo' here, however. Check out this "Reality Check" on Gordon O'Connor's sketchy history as a lobbyist.
Silly me, I though the "Reality Check" was where the CBC got beyond the sound bites and spin and tried to shed light in an objective way. This, to me, seems more like an opinion piece or a somewhat biased analysis piece. There's any number of excerpts from this piece that strike me as decidely un-reality-checkesque, but this one is especially good:
But asking the right questions in a parliamentary committee is not the same as making the final judgment on multimillion or multibillion-dollar contracts that are being sold by former colleagues and, one assumes, friends.One assumes, does one? See, this one would have assumed that assumptions don't belong in a "Reality Check." But this one would also have assumed that the irony of having one of Paul Martin's biographers write a piece examing conflict of interest in Martin's rival's government would send warning signs to the CBC crew.
Shows what I know.
Post Script: In the interest of shameless self promotion and providing convenient links to coverage, check out my MediaScout post on O'Connor.